Change the comment of is_dump_unreclaim_slabs(), it just check
whether nr_unreclaimable slabs amount is greater than user
memory, and explain why we dump unreclaim slabs.
Rename it to should_dump_unreclaim_slab() maybe better.
Signed-off-by: Hui Su <sh_def@xxxxxxx>
---
mm/oom_kill.c | 14 ++++++++------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
index 8b84661a6410..04b19b7b5435 100644
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c
+++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -170,11 +170,13 @@ static bool oom_unkillable_task(struct task_struct *p)
return false;
}
-/*
- * Print out unreclaimble slabs info when unreclaimable slabs amount is greater
- * than all user memory (LRU pages)
- */
-static bool is_dump_unreclaim_slabs(void)
+/**
+ * Check whether unreclaimable slab amount is greater than
+ * all user memory(LRU pages).
+ * dump_unreclaimable_slab() could help in the case that
+ * oom due to too much unreclaimable slab used by kernel.
+*/
+static bool should_dump_unreclaim_slab(void)
{
unsigned long nr_lru;
@@ -463,7 +465,7 @@ static void dump_header(struct oom_control *oc, struct task_struct *p)
mem_cgroup_print_oom_meminfo(oc->memcg);
else {
show_mem(SHOW_MEM_FILTER_NODES, oc->nodemask);
- if (is_dump_unreclaim_slabs())
+ if (should_dump_unreclaim_slab())
dump_unreclaimable_slab();
}
if (sysctl_oom_dump_tasks)
--
2.29.0
